Armstrong has been tinkered with!!

tcklyde

I'll start with my usual preface: I don't know if LA is doping. No one here does. And in 1999, Bassons did not know whether or not LA was doping.

My only reason for posting here is to suggest an alternate reading of why LA might have confronted Bassons on stage 9 (or whatever stage, I forget).

LA is winning his first Tour. The ultimate moment of glory after coming back from cancer. Bassons, meanwhile, is reporting, with no direct evidence, that the leaders of the Tour are probably doped up. If you were Armstrong, and you were clean, wouldn't some guy impugning your credibility piss you off to the core? And this is Armstrong, remember. The guy doesn't exactly know when to shut up. Instead of enforcing a code of silence, perhaps he was sticking up for himself? It is an equally probable motive for his actions. And since, like I keep saying, none of us know for sure whether LA is doping, seems like a good reason to me.

Perhaps it was a code of silence. I don't know. But neither does Bassons.

__________________
Harry

hombredesubaru

I am not angry at Bassons at all. It was the entire peloton that was angry at him. Yes if he was stating that the leaders were doping and Lance was the leader it doesnt take rocket science to figure out why Lance went to talk to him. Then Bassons tries to play the pity card, how the riders were isolating him, and flicking him, how unhappy he was, at which point Lance reportedly says, if you are so unhappy, you could always leave, which he did. But really, he brought it on himself.

So no, Lance did not order him off the race. Lance was not the boss back then. It was not a code of silence Lance was talking bout, it was a rider in the peloton constantly bringing doubt about Lance's accomplishments without reason. Lance had a lot of reason to try and counter negative statements which were unfounded, that is his right.

Check your facts. Yes, Bassons did try to turn a profit. The next year he writes a book, "Positif" about the whole affair. If he didnt turn a profit, I suppose its because no one thought he was woth listening to. Yes, I think that is trying to turn a profit by talking about doping, because he was never before or after the 99 Tour going to make much money on the bike since wasnt such a great rider.

DV1976

Really? Whereas LA wrote his books for charity (and he has written many). You are very quick to attack people that try (according to you) to discredit LA yet you have no problem whatsoever to discredit Bassons. And the funniest thing of all is that you quoted Virenque to support your arguments. A self-confessed doper. BTW Bassons was not the only one to be ostracized. Read what Kimmage has to say on the matter (if you haven't read it).
The way I see it either you accept that the whole peloton is clean (at least the top riders) and there is no doping in TDF or you accept that doping exists and is an integral part of TDF and that includes LA. There are no two ways about it.

hombredesubaru

I do not know but do not think Lance's first book was for charity, or the second. I belive those are the only books he has written. And he wasnt writing a book about how everyone dopes but him, blah blah blah like Bassons and Simeoni. He has a compelling story to tell, neither of those two riders do or did. End of story.

No, there are more nuanced and balanced ways of understanding the doping problem instead of what you suggest that everyone does it or no one does it. I think the reality now is the vast majority of riders do not do it but some still try to get away with it and some get caught while others dont.

I am not attcking anyone, just stating opinions. Yes

DV1976

Actually I was being a little sarcastic there

No but he wrote a book (at least the 2nd the one that I have read) about how great his training is, how hard he trains, how bad the French are, how nice his Girona house is, what great teammates he has and what a good masseur that manages to have them rested between stages using herbal concoctions, blah, blah... Not only that but I bought his performance programme expected to be taken aback by its sophistication and see for myself why nobody trains like Lance (as he so often implies). Well, to say that I was dissapointed at the end would be an understatment (probably Kloeden has read the same book). Sorry I don't buy it.

.
Well I don't know how you can say that bearing in mind what happened in 98 and 01. Do you really think that cycling changed that much in 3 years (unless you believe that there was not much of a problem to start with). The truth is that doping has been a big part of cycling since its birth (as a sport). Wherever there is money involved there is widespread doping and that includes all sports not just cycling. Now I could go on citing examples like Flyer does but I suspect that it wouldn't do much good as you are not likely to change your mind.

Perro Loco

I think this argument will go on and on- and never be settled to everyones satifaction
As I said in another thread
Like conspiracy theories, the loch ness monster, bigfoot we all seem to want to believe something mysterious is out there.
I have always fiound it quite interesting that people claim Armstrong was mediocre and made great by drugs.
So why haven't others benefited from this?
Medical and biological research does not occur in a vacuum as one see's in movies and in novels. There are no isolated labs comming up with earth shattering breakthroughs. The breakthroughs touted in the press are actually small advancements that that progress from other works done by scores of researchers from multiple institutions.
If such a cocktail existed it would taken an army of researchers, clinical trials to have developed it. Try keeping that under wraps.
Is Armstrong Dopping, I really don't know. If he is it is no more than others.

Regarding Armstrongs Mediocre Results previously
In 96 at the age of 24 he was 2nd in Paris Nice *, and liege, won Fleche, Tour dupount. Previous to this he was one of the youngest world champions (this back when the WC was targeted more than today due to when it is held), Won San Sebastian, 2nd in sevaral other, Stage winner in tour at 21...

*(a week before he suffered a heavy crash at the Tour of Valencia-during this time the director of ONCE felt he was the strongest rider including his own Jalabert who would win Paris Nice
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/.../feb96/val.html
At the age of 23, loosing 6 minutes to Indurain is a lot but consider the day before he won a stage in a breakaway and several days earlier a teammate died. No matter what is said I doubt this was a typical perfermonce.

If you look at Indurains results at the tour at a similar age 23, you will see similar results.
Comparing to Jan at a similar age niether Stacks up as far as tour performance goes. But then again Jan was not competitive throughout the spring in 96, he was focused on the tour.
Just to stir things up, remember Jan came up through the East German Sports schools- experts at doping and in his first two tours rode with Mr. 60%- how come no talks about him being tinkered with?

Regarding the weight issue Armstrong was a little heavy upper body before, chemo. When Armstrong signed with Cofidis, in an interview in Velonews Guimard is qouted as saying to the effect that Armstrong can win the Tour but he must be convinced that he can. Merckx thought Armstrong was a little to heavy to ever win....
Also Armstrongs work ethic has improved dramaticly post chemo.
He has also benifited tremendously by riding for a US sponsered team. This allowed him to concentrate exclusively on the tour in 99.

play with this calculator and see what dropping a few Kilos does to speed uphill. It's a lot of fun. I now convinced to drop some kilos
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Once again if you believe Lance is doping/has been doped/altered etc there is no evidence absolute evidence proving you wrong - on the other hand the converse is true.. there is no absolute evidence that he is or has been.
I'll close with a qoute from from Jens Voigt

JV: That’s what makes him so good (discussing how hard Armstrong works). I mean, I still believe to this day that Jan Ullrich has the bigger engine, but Lance is the more dedicated driver of the engine. Lance may be a little less naturally gifted than Ullrich, but he makes up for any tiny difference by dedicating everything to knowing the race inside out. He knows the course, he knows his body, he looks at his team, and gets the strongest possible team around him, and keeps to his regime in a way that he knows will make him the best. You know, maybe Lance has five horsepower less than Ullrich, it’s not much at their level. You can’t be at that level and have 50 horsepower less, look at me, I have 50 horsepower less, but between them, there is a really small difference, and Lance makes it up by making all the conditions perfect for himself. And that’s how he wins.

kennf

And again, one can only conclude that Lance stole Flyer's lunch money as a small child.

micron

One point that might be worth considering.

It is often cited that Armstrong has bever failed a dope test. Setting aside the fact that riders like Virenque and Millar never tested positive either, it might be interesting to consider some facts about testing.

The 1984 US cycling team used blood doping as a PED and had a record haul of gold medals. To this day, there is no test for an autologous (i.e. using your own blood) transfusion. The test that caught Hamilton and Perez has been attacked for being relatively untested. Blood doping, which has been around since at least the 1980s still cannot be tested for.

In the Balco scandal, the breakthrough test was only developed after the receipt of a vial of TGH. Otherwise this would remain undetectable.

There is no test that detects human growth hormone.

The EPO test has only effectively been in place since the Sydney Olympics.

And once there's the rumour that a test is in development, don't you think that the doctors simply move on? After all, there are plenty of substances out there that can improve performance by enhancing endurance, recovery, the ability to train.

Cyclists don't have to be using some amazing 'superjuice' since there's a whole raft of products out there that can be used as PEDs that aren't and can't be effectively tested for.

micron

the prosecutor of the Annecy department in France will be opening a preliminary enquiry into doping by interviewing the Armstrong entourage. The decision to open the enquiry has been made as a result of declarations made by Emma O'Reilly to the Parisian police that support and reiterate her earlier claims of dope use by Armstrong.

So maybe we will finally get at some kind of truth.

I can just hear subaru and bspeedy's collective blood boiling as they chant their mantra 'jealous French, spiteful French'...

Perro Loco

This will be interesting as so far I have read very little from O'Reilly that sounds convincing.

hombredesubaru

I agree she is not convincing but I dont think Lance will need ANY convining
He WILL NOT RIDE THE TOUR! no way